[nanok]

only the last one is prefocused, the rest are not. the one with the white impreza is as close to "car coming at me fast" as it gets, save for standing in the path of the car (look at the exif, focal length, there was no cropping), shooting on the highway is a silly joke compared to shooting rally (trust me, i thought about it too, for "training", it doesn't compare). so the one with the prefocusing was just a joke. here is an example from the same series:
web-imgp1133.pef

web-imgp1134.pef

as you can see, unless i was prefocusing on two distinct points, it was the camera who did the job . (same car, same corner, different position)

you are partially right about prefocusing: indeed, you can prefocus when shooting rally, but you hardly can do it after a few cars have passed, you have to think in advance, because unlike track racing, you cannot move around after the race starts, or at least not so much, so you have to think and chose your spot wisely. this is why people who know what they are doing when shooting rally (namely understand how the race goes, and how the brain of the pilot works and the phisics of the car) tend to make pictures with prefocusing as nice as people who have fast af and think the same way, and better than people who have fast af and don't think .

i understand your point about responsiveness, but to be honest, the pentaxes have been quite good in my oppinion, i have rarely had issues. could it be better? of course, but that's why i said it depends on the shooter, what he needs, how he uses the camera, etc.

and btw, most of the pictures above (including the two i linked in this post) were shot with the "dreaded" k100d, and the 50-200 (or in some cases the 18-55), so not the fastest combination out there (the k10d and k20d with the same lenses definetly are faster than the k100d, i have used both).

[dylansalt]

Hi Nanok

On this forum you are just wasting your breathe with re: Pentax Af and its detractors.

It doesn't matter what proof you produce - Pentax Af just doesn't cut it for these guys.

I have had the same argument and have shown surfing shots with surfers coming straight at me at about 100% magnification (zero prefocusing), MTB shots, dogs jumping, extreme low grunge lighting, wedding etc etc and all I got was the detractors.

I will feel very sorry for them if the "K7" is not improved in this dept - cos then there will be a real "weeping & Gnashing of teeth" as they will definitely now have to go to another system.

We that find the Pentax Af sufficient for our sporting endeavors are extremely fortunate as we will not have to face this dilemma of "having" to repurchase into a whole new system

Thank goodness

Dylan

[nanok]

Hi Nanok

On this forum you are just wasting your breathe with re: Pentax Af and its detractors.

It doesn't matter what proof you produce - Pentax Af just doesn't cut it for these guys.

that's normal, and i also pointed it out in my previous post: if it's not good for them... it's no good for them. i respect their oppinion and, because of my technical inclination, i am interested in hearing and trying to understand what breaks and what might "make" the good af for them. however, when i take the time to browse through (maybe hundreds of) pictures i haven't looked at for months at least, just to provide some examples, i select 5 or so, and all i get is a comment relevant only to the last one (which was a joke), generalized to all of them, it kind of pisses me off (enough to reply ).

I have had the same argument and have shown surfing shots with surfers coming straight at me at about 100% magnification (zero prefocusing), MTB shots, dogs jumping, extreme low grunge lighting, wedding etc etc and all I got was the detractors.

I will feel very sorry for them if the "K7" is not improved in this dept - cos then there will be a real "weeping & Gnashing of teeth" as they will definitely now have to go to another system.

We that find the Pentax Af sufficient for our sporting endeavors are extremely fortunate as we will not have to face this dilemma of "having" to repurchase into a whole new system

Thank goodness

Dylan

maybe we are lucky, or maybe we are idiots and don't know what we're missing, i don't know. but i would like to understand what is it that's so terrible (apart from the tracking intelligence, which is not there); as i said, i agree with you: if the af is bad for them, it is bad, and any evaluation of any samples you provide will start from that established truth, so there's no point in trying to convince them. the only thing that does convince them can be shooting a pentax camera and being happy with the way it performs for their needs, but i am still curious to understand what might be missing/could be done to make them happy. if that's even possible at this point (meaning, if there is any way a pentax camera, no matter how good, will get the positive vote) is an entire different can of worms which i won't open, so for now i am assuming their complaints have objective grounds (of course they cannot _be_ objective in themselves, as i explained), and thus can be addressed through technology (as they claim).

[Wheatfield]

I don't know how fast the cars in your example were moving so I really can't comment, other than it looks like they were moving slowly enough for the AF.
The situation I have with my dogs is somewhat different, in that the AF of my K20 is not fast enough.
Yours and dylansalts apologist replies are all well and good, I can only speak to my needs.
I'm glad you guys never miss a shot because of camera lag. I wish my shooting conditions were so uncritical.

[dafiryde]

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
Nikon and Canon cameras don't make as good use of Pentax lenses as Pentax cameras do.
I use Pentax because I think the lenses are better than Nikon or Canon's lenses, and that is more important to me than camera body performance.
Having said that, a Pentax with the responsivenes of a Nikon D300 would be very nice indeed.
I believe that is somewhat higher calibre than any of the three cameras you've mentioned.

having read what you said, i guess i have a geat system.
i don't do sports photos, actually the only time i took one was when David Beckham came down to do a friendly game with england last year
and sea world was actually the most action shots i have gotten in the last 2+ years. taking all this into consideration, i am convinced i am not a candidate for requiring super fast autofocus
so in my subnocsis, i think i will stay with Pentax
all they can do for me now is make a DA*16-135 f/2.8 lens

Dave

[Wheatfield]

having read what you said, i guess i have a geat system.
i don't do sports photos, actually the only time i took one was when David Beckham came down to do a friendly game with england last year
and sea world was actually the most action shots i have gotten in the last 2+ years. taking all this into consideration, i am convinced i am not a candidate for requiring super fast autofocus
so in my subnocsis, i think i will stay with Pentax
all they can do for me now is make a DA*16-135 f/2.8 lens

Dave

And to be fair, Pentax AF suits my needs probably 90% or more of the time. If it didn't I'd be using a different system.
I'm mostly either a studio shooter or else landscapes and macros.
It doesn't stop me from wanting that extra 10% of my shooting needs satisfied though.

[dafiryde]

And to be fair, Pentax AF suits my needs probably 90% or more of the time. If it didn't I'd be using a different system.
I'm mostly either a studio shooter or else landscapes and macros.
It doesn't stop me from wanting that extra 10% of my shooting needs satisfied though.

thanks , your reply helped
i think i will take that money and order a 60-260, then i will need a bigger bag, here it goes again CBA< LBA< BBA<ABA

Dave

[Wheatfield]

thanks , your reply helped
i think i will take that money and order a 60-260, then i will need a bigger bag, here it goes again CBA< LBA< BBA<ABA

Dave

I'm starting to see pictures from that lens from a few guys on PDML.
It's looking like it's going to go from want to need pretty quickly for me as well.

[nanok]

I don't know how fast the cars in your example were moving so I really can't comment, other than it looks like they were moving slowly enough for the AF.

you can comment, as you did comment

irc-rally fast. faster than me or you drive on the highway. pretty damn fast, especially for how close you can get (as i said, and as i assume you know, distance does matter, as much as speed). "slowly enough for the af", so what you mean to say is that my shots are indeed reasonably sharp (thanks, i do know that, it can be better, my technique is not perfect either), and at the same time to subtly hint that, still, the pentax af is indeed slow, as a well known fact.

The situation I have with my dogs is somewhat different, in that the AF of my K20 is not fast enough.
Yours and dylansalts apologist replies are all well and good, I can only speak to my needs.
I'm glad you guys never miss a shot because of camera lag. I wish my shooting conditions were so uncritical.

indeed, shooting rally is much like landscape (actually, it is landscape, just that some crazzy guy and his copilot in a ridiculously colored car comes along every two minutes to spoil the scenery).

dogs are hard, they are so hard sometimes you cannot track fast enough to keep them in the frame (mainly because they are so unpredictable), let alone track with af. please give us an example of a reasonably priced system which exists right now on the market (in the k20d price range) which does exactly what you want for that particular purpose (dogs). it would be an interesting starting point to figure out what you are missing.

if you can show me a system which allows me to never miss a shot due to "camera lag" (i understand this as anything including af, but i asume you mean mostly af), i will be very interested. and no, d3 or 1ds mark 3 is not a reasonable comparison for k20d (if only because of the price). do you think canon 40d/50d or nikon d80/d90 is so damn brilliant? according to some, it cuts both ways, sometimes those cameras can be quick to shoot, but many times too quick... i had many more shots missed due to my own mistakes than due to my pentax system, and as i said, i would welcome an improvement, but from asking for improvements to claiming the current system is worthless (or nearly so) it's a long way.

[Wheatfield]

you can comment, as you did comment

irc-rally fast. faster than me or you drive on the highway. pretty damn fast, especially for how close you can get (as i said, and as i assume you know, distance does matter, as much as speed). "slowly enough for the af", so what you mean to say is that my shots are indeed reasonably sharp (thanks, i do know that, it can be better, my technique is not perfect either), and at the same time to subtly hint that, still, the pentax af is indeed slow, as a well known fact.



indeed, shooting rally is much like landscape (actually, it is landscape, just that some crazzy guy and his copilot in a ridiculously colored car comes along every two minutes to spoil the scenery).

dogs are hard, they are so hard sometimes you cannot track fast enough to keep them in the frame (mainly because they are so unpredictable), let alone track with af. please give us an example of a reasonably priced system which exists right now on the market (in the k20d price range) which does exactly what you want for that particular purpose (dogs). it would be an interesting starting point to figure out what you are missing.

if you can show me a system which allows me to never miss a shot due to "camera lag" (i understand this as anything including af, but i asume you mean mostly af), i will be very interested. and no, d3 or 1ds mark 3 is not a reasonable comparison for k20d (if only because of the price). do you think canon 40d/50d or nikon d80/d90 is so damn brilliant? according to some, it cuts both ways, sometimes those cameras can be quick to shoot, but many times too quick... i had many more shots missed due to my own mistakes than due to my pentax system, and as i said, i would welcome an improvement, but from asking for improvements to claiming the current system is worthless (or nearly so) it's a long way.

This keeps falling back into apologist territory (IE: what camera in the same price bracket as Pentax) The price isn't the point.
The performance is the point.
It comes with a higher price tag.
Pentax isn't there yet. We'll see over the next few weeks if they have made it or not with the new cameras (I have a solid rumour that the K7 isn't the only thing in the pipeline)

[dafiryde]

I'm starting to see pictures from that lens from a few guys on PDML.
It's looking like it's going to go from want to need pretty quickly for me as well.

once again, if i had a dollar for everything i want, i would be the richest man on earth, so for now, i have to settle for need
now all i have to do is convince the wife why i needed it , these conversations unfortunately only takes place after the credit card statements arrive

Dave

[nanok]

if "price is not the point, the performance is the point", i see no reason why you should wait for the k7, both canon and nikon have your solution. your collection of pentax glass is also not a reason, as long as price is not the point.

as to your apologist tag: please make a point, stop taging. i took my time and tried hard to explain how i see things, avoiding to throw tags around, i honestly think taging in such a discussion (as well as name calling) is rude. i am no "apologist", i have mentioned, for one, that i believe the af could be better, and that i would like to understand what other peoples major problems with the af system are, and i do not try to defend anyone (if you would read what i said it should be obvious), i am just describing my experience, and the way i see things. before i am any sort of pentax "apologist", i will need money from pentax, so don't worry about that.

[Ratmagiclady]

I'm stilll not convinced you 'need' s-h AF to do action photography, or photography of any kind. It's just that some who know little but are dependent upon it. Accordingly, there are expectations.

No, Pentax is not where I'd go for tracking race cars. Who said you had to, anyway. I got curious and shot oncoming objects out a moving car window recently, just out of curiosity: brick buildings at middle range with us going about 35. Seemed to work, to me. I think the most disconcerting thing about it was not *knowing* if it worked till I chimped.

I would not believe the 'can't.' It might not be what I'd pick for a job, but people say it like you can't sit in the stands and have your fun and get your shots. This just isn't true.

When autofocus first was being sold in a consumer form, we used to race me against it in a shop, simple test, me vs Maxxums and Nikons turning and shooting at a clock someone held at unknown range. My K20d could beat me now, maybe could have even beat me then.....the weak link's long been 'Tell the camera what to lock onto.' ...*then* how fast it is gets involved.

Yeah, if you were doing it for a living, you'd want it as fast as you could get: I'm certainly not getting any faster, myself: I'l take faster, as long as I don't lose accuracy in the bargain. But I don't buy vehicles based on the idea I 'can't' get to a campsite or park on an unpaved lot without the latest four wheel drive, either.

Photography, even action photography, though, if you asked me, isn't about speed, it's about, 'how fast can you take your time?'

How fast can you be steady and accurate and get the shot. Some machines are more optimized for that, but they can't take your photos for you.

Some makers' AF may be faster, but not faster-enough that I can afford to whiff the *exposure* cause I couldn't afford a model with two dials.

[GeneV]

I'm stilll not convinced you 'need' s-h AF to do action photography, or photography of any kind. It's just that some who know little but are dependent upon it. Accordingly, there are expectations.

No, Pentax is not where I'd go for tracking race cars. Who said you had to, anyway. I got curious and shot oncoming objects out a moving car window recently, just out of curiosity: brick buildings at middle range with us going about 35. Seemed to work, to me. I think the most disconcerting thing about it was not *knowing* if it worked till I chimped.

I would not believe the 'can't.' It might not be what I'd pick for a job, but people say it like you can't sit in the stands and have your fun and get your shots. This just isn't true.

When autofocus first was being sold in a consumer form, we used to race me against it in a shop, simple test, me vs Maxxums and Nikons turning and shooting at a clock someone held at unknown range. My K20d could beat me now, maybe could have even beat me then.....the weak link's long been 'Tell the camera what to lock onto.' ...*then* how fast it is gets involved.

Yeah, if you were doing it for a living, you'd want it as fast as you could get: I'm certainly not getting any faster, myself: I'l take faster, as long as I don't lose accuracy in the bargain. But I don't buy vehicles based on the idea I 'can't' get to a campsite or park on an unpaved lot without the latest four wheel drive, either.

Photography, even action photography, though, if you asked me, isn't about speed, it's about, 'how fast can you take your time?'

How fast can you be steady and accurate and get the shot. Some machines are more optimized for that, but they can't take your photos for you.

Some makers' AF may be faster, but not faster-enough that I can afford to whiff the *exposure* cause I couldn't afford a model with two dials.

Nice summary.

[pingflood]

I think this whole discussion is revolving around a strawman -- nobody around here is saying you _can't_ do it, they're just saying that it's not the best tool for it and other cameras might do it better.